Automatism

• in pleading automatism, the defendant is claiming that at the time they committed the offence, they didn't know what they were doing because they were acting as an automaton- their conduct was involuntary and as a result of external factors
• what is element one of automatism?

  The defendant' loss of control must be total
• What is the significance of the case of watmore v jenkins?

  It shows that if the defendant has any degree of control over their conduct, they are not an automaton
• Which case shows that if the defendant has any degree of control over their conduct, they are not an automaton?

  Watmore v Jenkins
• what is the second element of automatism?

  The loss of control must be caused by an external factor that isn't related to the brain, or the loss of control must be caused by a brain malfunction as a result of an external factor
• what is the significance of the case of r v Quick?

  It is an example of automatism pleading successfully because the mental abnormality was caused by an external factor
• which case an example of automatism pleading successfully because the mental abnormality was caused by an external factor?

  R v Quick
• Which case an example of automatism pleading unsuccessfully because the mental abnormality was not caused by an external factor?

  r v Hennessy
• What is the significance of the case of r v hennessy?

  it gives an example of automatism pleading unsuccessfully because the mental abnormality was not caused by an external factor
• where someone becomes a self induced automaton as a result of voluntary actions such as drinking alcohol or taking drugs, the defence of automatism is not available.
• If the defendant becomes a self induced automaton as a result of failing to take prescribed drugs, they will be able to rely on the defence of automatism if they did not know the conduct they would engage in while being an automaton.
• what is the signifiance of the case of r v Bailey?

  It shows the defence of self induced automatism failing because the Defendant knew the conduct they'd commit was an offence as a result of not taking prescribed medicine.
• which case shows the defence of self induced automatism failing because the Defendant knew the conduct they'd commit was an offence as a result of not taking prescribed medicine?

  r v Bailey
• what is the significance of the case of hill v baxter?

  It shows that someone can plead automatism if they are put into an automatic state through an external cause
• Which case shows that someone can plead automatism if they are put into an automatic state through an external cause?

  Hill v Baxter
• what is the significance of the Attorney general's 2nd reference of 1992?

  It shows that there must be a total loss of voluntary control; a reduced or partial control of one's actions isn't sufficient to amount to automatism
• which case shows that there must be a total loss of voluntary control; a reduced or partial control of one's actions isn't sufficient to amount to automatism ?

  Attorney General's second reference of 1992
• what is the significance of the case of r v coley?

  It shows that when the state of automatism comes fro the defendant's own voluntary conduct, the intoxication rules apply and automatism will not be allowed.
• Which case shows that when the state of automatism comes from the defendant's own voluntary conduct, the intoxication rules apply and automatism will not be allowed?

  r v Coley
• WHat is the significance of the case of r v Hardie?

  It shows that if the automatic state results from some kind of improper action, or failure by the defendant, automatism will be a defence for specific intent offences because the defendant cannot be in a worse position than they would be if their state resulted from intoxication.
• which case shows that if the automatic state results from some kind of improper action, or failure by the defendant, automatism will be a defence for specific intent offences because the defendant cannot be in a worse position than they would be if their state resulted from intoxication?

  r v Hardie 1984
• What is the significance of the case of r v Bailey 1983?

  It shows that if the defendant's automatic state resulted from some kind of improper action or failure by the defendant, automatism will not be a defence to basic intent offences if the defendant knew the risk that if they did become an automaton, they might engage in dangerous or aggressive conduct.
• which case shows that if the defendant's automatic state resulted from some kind of improper action or failure by the defendant, automatism will not be a defence to basic intent offences if the defendant knew the risk that if they did become an automaton, they might engage in dangerous or aggressive conduct?

  r v bailey 1983